Free will?

[Reformationist]

I am reading a very interesting book by Dr. Martin Luther called The Bondage Of The Will. For those of you who have not read this book it is a refutation of the Diatribe by Erasmus of Rotterdam on the issue of "free will." Anyway, it got me wondering about this term, "free will," that is so casually thrown around in Christian circles. So, I have come to ask a question of those who support the view that man has "free will" in an effort to understand what, exactly, you mean when you put forth this idea.

Would those of you who are protagonists for the case of free will please explain to me what you mean when you use this term?

Thank you,
God bless

[Reformationist]

Anyone? Beuller? Anyone?

[WesWoodell]

I'm not a protagonist for either case, but I believe man has the ability to make his own choices.

[Reformationist]

I'm not a protagonist for either case, but I believe man has the ability to make his own choices.
Umm...okay. What are the "cases" that you are talking about when you say "either case?"

Also, I'm not denying that man is a volitional and rational creature. He was created that way. I'm just asking what people mean when they say they believe man has "free will."

Thanks,
God bless

[Asaph]

Also, I'm not denying that man is a volitional and rational creature. He was created that way. I'm just asking what people mean when they say they believe man has "free will."

Thanks,
God bless
I'm not so sure I can even agree that man was created as a volitional creature. Prior to sin entering through Adam, what need would there have been for volition? I'm beginning to think that Adam's true chargable offense was that he created "freewill" when he ate from the tree. He set himself above God and in the process brought the "knowledge of good and evil" into creation.

But you stated that you wished to hear from those of an arminian persuasion. Sorry, I'll try to restrain myself! ;) :D

[Reformationist]

I'm not so sure I can even agree that man was created as a volitional creature. Prior to sin entering through Adam, what need would there have been for volition? I'm beginning to think that Adam's true chargable offense was that he created "freewill" when he ate from the tree. He set himself above God and in the process brought the "knowledge of good and evil" into creation.Volition is merely the power of choosing or determining. Man had to have been created with this power or God could not hold him accountable for his choice to disobey. In fact, his very act of choosing to disobey shows his volitional nature. The choice to disobey God and eat of the fruit was most certainly a volitional choice. It wasn't as if Adam ate of the fruit by reflex. If Adam ate of the fruit and, in the process set himself above God, then it's because he chose to do so. The issue at hand is the morality of Adam's choice. If his choice to eat of the fruit had no moral ramifications then man would not have fallen and inherited a sinful nature.

But you stated that you wished to hear from those of an arminian persuasion. Sorry, I'll try to restrain myself! ;) :DLOL! Well, I'm more than willing, and hope to, hear comments from those who discount the idea that man's will is free but I first want to know what it is that is meant by those who use that phrase.

If it will help, I'll give my own definition. I would say that free will is simply man's ability to choose according to that which he most desires when faced with a moral decision. Free will, as I define it, does not speak to the issue of the scope of man's choices but rather that which determines what he does choose. Arminians who use this term seem to use it to mean that their choice is autonomous, that is, that there is no determinitive factor whatsoever which induces them to choose one way or the other. This, of course, begs the question of why they choose the way they do but I'll leave that for later.

God bless

[BInC]

Lol, lots of big words floatin around. My definition of free will is our ability to decide for good or evil. I believe it does come directly from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think free will is necessary as part of the plan of salvation. If we don't have free will, then we have no control over whether or not we are saved. However, even though we have free will, certain things must happen. For example, Judas had free will, but Jesus had to be betrayed. I don't know if it had to be Judas or not, but someone had to do it. Also, no man may add a single hour to his life. I think the bible says that the time of our death is not affected by free will. A book I read a long time ago suggested the idea of a balance between free will and prophecy, like certain things in prophecy must come true but other things are left up to free will. Like there are certain places we have to be at certain times, but the path we take to get there is our choice. That is kind of how I see free will, somthing that balances destiny instead of disproving it.

[Telrunya]

I love the way one of the contributors to Lee Stroble's book "A Case for Faith" put it. I wish I had the book here so I could quote it directly and give you the guy's name but basiclly it going like this: We have free will because love without a choice has no meaning. Why did God bother to create us if not to worship him? What meaning would that worship have if it wasn't a concious choice to do so. It would be worhtless and have no meaning at all. The problem with alot of people is they can't picture predestination and free will co-existing but they do. God is all knowing. He knew us before he formed us in our mother's womb and he knew what sins we would commit during our lives and he paid for those sins on the Cross. That doesn't absolve us of our responsibility of making the right choices in life though. Last winter I was driving down the highway at 25 mph because of all the ice on the road. I saw this four wheel drive blazer come to the on ramp speeding up as he went so that he could get onto the highway in front of me. I also saw the black ice on the road where the onramp met the highway. I knew this guy was going to be going for a ride if he didn't slow down. I knew he wouldn't though so I slowed down. He kept on speeding up and hit the ice at 45 mph and went flying across the highway into a ditch. I stopped to make sure he was ok and he toldme he hadn't seen the ice. Now thats a really simplistic analogy but God knew before we were born that we would choose to speed up when we should slow down. He gave us all the signs telling us to slow down,even though he knew we wouldn't. It's still our choice to sin though. When we have a choice between sinning and loving Him and we choose to love Him then that has meaning. I hope this helps.

[Reformationist]

My definition of free will is our ability to decide for good or evil.And do you think that man, after the Fall, retained power to will equally either for good or evil? That is, is the ability to choose irrespective of influence, inherent to man's fallen nature?

I think free will is necessary as part of the plan of salvation. If we don't have free will, then we have no control over whether or not we are saved.Uh huh. I see. And "having control over whether or not we are saved" is something you think the Bible not only professes we have but that we are, inherently, fully capable of willing things that lead to salvation?

However, even though we have free will, certain things must happen. For example, Judas had free will, but Jesus had to be betrayed. I don't know if it had to be Judas or not, but someone had to do it. Also, no man may add a single hour to his life. I think the bible says that the time of our death is not affected by free will. A book I read a long time ago suggested the idea of a balance between free will and prophecy, like certain things in prophecy must come true but other things are left up to free will. Like there are certain places we have to be at certain times, but the path we take to get there is our choice. That is kind of how I see free will, somthing that balances destiny instead of disproving it.In this book I'm reading Luther makes a distinction between having "free will" over things that are "below us" but being impotent with regard to things that are "above us." Things "below us" would include the things that we can control, like what we eat, what we name our dog, etc. Things above us, which Luther intimates that man is completely passive in regards to, include salvation.

Now, you seem to be saying that salvation is one of those things that man is able to be in control of by the power of his "free will." Is his ability to control this something that he is capable apart from the grace of God or is the grace of God necessary for him to play any part in it?

Thanks,
God bless

[Reformationist]

I love the way one of the contributors to Lee Stroble's book "A Case for Faith" put it. I wish I had the book here so I could quote it directly and give you the guy's name but basiclly it going like this: We have free will because love without a choice has no meaning. Why did God bother to create us if not to worship him? What meaning would that worship have if it wasn't a concious choice to do so. It would be worhtless and have no meaning at all. The problem with alot of people is they can't picture predestination and free will co-existing but they do. God is all knowing. He knew us before he formed us in our mother's womb and he knew what sins we would commit during our lives and he paid for those sins on the Cross. That doesn't absolve us of our responsibility of making the right choices in life though. Last winter I was driving down the highway at 25 mph because of all the ice on the road. I saw this four wheel drive blazer come to the on ramp speeding up as he went so that he could get onto the highway in front of me. I also saw the black ice on the road where the onramp met the highway. I knew this guy was going to be going for a ride if he didn't slow down. I knew he wouldn't though so I slowed down. He kept on speeding up and hit the ice at 45 mph and went flying across the highway into a ditch. I stopped to make sure he was ok and he toldme he hadn't seen the ice. Now thats a really simplistic analogy but God knew before we were born that we would choose to speed up when we should slow down. He gave us all the signs telling us to slow down,even though he knew we wouldn't. It's still our choice to sin though. When we have a choice between sinning and loving Him and we choose to love Him then that has meaning. I hope this helps.

Telrunya, first let me say thank you for responding. As much as I would like to, I am not, at this point, quite ready to debate whether free will is a valid biblical principle. I am currently just trying to determine the way in which people use the term "free will" and what power they ascribe to it.

Would you care to define free will, as you use the term, and tell me what power free will has? An example of an appropriate answer to my question would be, "The will of man is completely free to choose either for evil or good and this power is inherent to him and the grace of God, while helpful, is not necessary for man to will good."

Thanks,
God bless

[Telrunya]

<quote>"The will of man is completely free to choose either for evil or good and this power is inherent to him and the grace of God, while helpful, is not necessary for man to will good."</quote>


I would accept the above statement as an axiom.

[Reformationist]

I would accept the above statement as an axiom.
Just so I'm clear, are you contending that man's will is inherently free and has no need of divine grace to incline itself towards things pertaining to eternal life?

Also, just for your future reference, the scripting for this MB's format encloses tags in brackets, i.e., [ and ], rather than the usual < and >.:)

God bless

[mcvicarl]

well, i heard the fall of adam the beginning of law. you know how we're meant to be under grace? well, when God created adam and eve they did not know sin and therefore didnt even think of something wrong. they had a perfect relationship with god and everything was sweet. however when adam and eve were led into temptation by the devil to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil they got an understanding of good and evil. they knew what gods standard was but they also knew about the bad stuff as well. hence the beginning of law, from then on we knew better than to sin and im not very good with my scriptural refernces but the egyption ppl asked for the laws and thought they could keep them by their own strength. so god gave them 10 commandmetns and a stack of other laws which they couldnt keep and hence the need for a saviour. it was never meant to be by our strength.

ok, i may be getting off topic, but god has a plan for our lives, he'll try to get us to do that, bring people across our paths and he knows every mistake that we'll make but we have to make the discision to follow him. umm... im confusing myself but i belive in prophesy, but prophesy always seems to be the option of what you can fulfil if you trust in god or whats going to happen. jesus had to trust in god for what was going to be his future, i have to trust in god to find mine but prophesy uplifts, encourages and convicts us. i remember when i was in sin and i got prophesied over and the guy told me that god had told him i was in sin and he practically named the sin and then said that i had alot of calling on my life and that i was going to come to a choice i'd have to make soon. i could go with it or against it. am i making sense?

[Reformationist]

well, i heard the fall of adam the beginning of law. you know how we're meant to be under grace? well, when god created adam adn eve they did not know sin and therefore didnt even think of somehting wrong. they had a perfect relationship with god and everything was sweet. however when adam and eve were led into temptation by the devil to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil they got an understanding of good and evil. they knew what gods stndard was but they also knew about the bad stuff as well. hence the beginning of law, from then on we knew better than to sin and im not very good with my scriptural refernces but the egyptioon ppl asked for the laws and thought thwey could keep them by their own strength. so god gave them 10 commandmetns and a stack of other laws which they couldnt keep and hence the need for a saviour. it was never meant to be by our strength.

ok, i may be getting off topic, but god has a plan for our lives, he'll try to get us to do that, bring people across our paths and he knows every mistake that we'll make but we have to make the discisiont o follow him. umm... im confusing myself but i belive in prophesy, but prophesy always seems to be the option of what you can fulfil if you trust in god or whats going ot happen. jesus had to trust in god for whatg was going to be his future, i have to trust in god to find mine but prophesy uplifts, encourages and convicts us. i remember when i was in sin and i got prophesied ov erand te guy told me that god ahd told him i was in sin and he practically named the sin and then said that i had a alot of calling on my life and that i was going to come to a a choice i'd have ot make soon. i could go with ot or againsty it. am i making sense?
Ummm....So what do you think free will is? :scratch: :confused: I'm not really sure what what your answer was to that question.

Additionally, I have two words for you, and I mean this in kindness, SPELL CHECK. Your posts are very difficult to read because of the inordinate amount of spelling/typographical errors.;)

It sounds like you might have something interesting to say but I'm having a hard time deciphering what you mean because of the typos.

God bless

[inHisgrip]

I have always thought of free will as our ability to choose. God gave us this seed so that we could make choices, whether it be to do good or evil, to love or not to love, ect..
I believe we were created with free will(choice), not something that came after the fall.
Free will is Gods gift to us.
By having this choice we have the ability to love, which is what it is all about, without this choice, there is no love.
Does this make any sense??
In Him

[Reformationist]

I have always thought of free will as our ability to choose. God gave us this seed so that we could make choices, whether it be to do good or evil, to love or not to love, ect..
I believe we were created with free will(choice), not something that came after the fall.
Free will is Gods gift to us.
By having this choice we have the ability to love, which is what it is all about, without this choice, there is no love.
Does this make any sense??
In Him
Hi inHisgrip. So, free will is the ability to make choices, and this ability includes the inherent ability to make good choices as well as evil choices? Am I right in understanding that you believe that man did not lose any portion of this liberty when he fell from grace? Do you believe that the grace of God is necessary for man to be able to choose to be obedient to Him?

Thanks,
God bless

[fiveinjuly]

I think that we have our own will to choose. That's all ai have to say abou that.

[inHisgrip]

I believe that the Lord gave us the ability to choose whether we would fall or not, that is free will. I believe that we are saved by His grace.
By "losing any portion of this liberty"? are you asking if at the fall we lost the ability to make choices? If that is the question, no, I don't think we lost this ability. (I am sure you make choices and excercise your free will everyday).
I think that salvation is necessary to be obedient to Him, and His grace is what saves us.
IMHO
In Him

[Flynmonkie]

Free Will or Free Agency -Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes :)

[ZealouS]

Proverbs 16
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.

I think a man makes major decisions in life. To persue Good or Evil, to serve God or serve yourself ect. Once you have made your decision, God determines what experiences you have. So in your heart you can say "I am going to be this or that" but God will determine the steps that get you there. If God has other plans for you, other than the course you selected, he will lead your steps off that course and onto a new one.

[andy153]

My dear friend Reformationist,

I am reading a very interesting book by Dr. Martin Luther called The Bondage Of The Will. For those of you who have not read this book it is a refutation of the Diatribe by Erasmus of Rotterdam on the issue of "free will." Anyway, it got me wondering about this term, "free will," that is so casually thrown around in Christian circles. So, I have come to ask a question of those who support the view that man has "free will" in an effort to understand what, exactly, you mean when you put forth this idea.

Would those of you who are protagonists for the case of free will please explain to me what you mean when you use this term?

Thank you,
God blessAs always I find your posts interesting and thought provoking.

Our will, whither it be free or not is what we bring about to pass as a result of our actions.

The will of God is above the will of man, the will of man is above the will of satan. Satan tries to tempt man to align his "free will" with his own.

In the garden of Eden mans will was aligned with the fathers. Since the fall man's will is never entirely free as he is either aligned to the fathers will or Satans.

I look forward to debating this issue with you further.

with love and respect, andy153

[Reformationist]

I think that we have our own will to choose. That's all ai have to say abou that.
So do you believe that "our will to choose" is free to choose to do the things pertaining to eternal life?

Thanks,
God bless

[Reformationist]

I believe that the Lord gave us the ability to choose whether we would fall or not, that is free will.
Okay. That was pre-Fall man though.

I believe that we are saved by His grace.
Okay. I agree.

By "losing any portion of this liberty"? are you asking if at the fall we lost the ability to make choices? If that is the question, no, I don't think we lost this ability. (I am sure you make choices and excercise your free will everyday).
No. That's not exactly what I'm asking. I agree that man, prior to the Fall, was equally capable of choosing to obey or disobey because his nature was not tainted by sin and, as such, had no determinitive proclivity. I am just wondering what effect you feel the Fall had upon the proclivities of man, being that he now has a sin nature, and if it had an effect can we truly say that man's will is still "free." Additionally, I'm not talking simply about "making choices." I think man's will is free to the extent that he exercises dominion over the things that are under him. Our daily activities would fall into this catagory, i.e., what shirt to wear, whether to feed the dog, what we name our children, etc. However, I think that many Christians errantly think that man, because he is a volitional creature created with the ability to rationally make choices that his will is, in effect, free to make any and all choices, including those pertaining to eternal life.

I think that salvation is necessary to be obedient to Him, and His grace is what saves us.
IMHO
In Him
Okay. I agree. I am a little confused that you can acknowledge that salvation is a prerequisite to obedience (something I agree with) while simultaneously claiming that man's will is "free." Do you believe that the work of salvation changes man's nature? If so, then that means that a change to man's inherent nature is necessary before man is capable of being obedient. If that is true then is man's will inherently free?

Thanks,
God bless

[Reformationist]

Free Will or Free Agency -Freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes :)
I will assume that you are speaking of moral choices. I'm sure you are not discounting the fact that external causes do not dictate what choices are available to us, right? For instance, you cannot "self determine" to flap your arms and overcome the law of gravity, right? If you are speaking purely of moral choices, this would mean you believe that man's will is not only free but autonomous. Is that truly what you believe? :scratch:

I agree that man's will is free to the extent that he chooses according to what he most desires at the moment of decision. I also agree that the choices we make are not the product of external compulsion. However, this does not necessarily indicate that man's will is "free."

Do you believe that man, in his natural state apart from the grace of God, is able to choose to be obedient to God's Law?

Thanks,
God bless

[Reformationist]

Proverbs 16
9 In his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps.

I think a man makes major decisions in life. To persue Good or Evil, to serve God or serve yourself ect. Once you have made your decision, God determines what experiences you have. So in your heart you can say "I am going to be this or that" but God will determine the steps that get you there. If God has other plans for you, other than the course you selected, he will lead your steps off that course and onto a new one.
I agree that man makes these choices. What I'm curious about is whether you believe man is naturally free to make any choice, including those pertaining to eternal life.

Thanks,
God bless

[Reformationist]

My dear friend Reformationist,
Yes my dear friend andy? :)

As always I find your posts interesting and thought provoking.
Thank you. That's very kind of you.

Our will, whither it be free or not is what we bring about to pass as a result of our actions.
I'm sorry. Do you mean that our actions dictate our will or that our will dictates our actions?

The will of God is above the will of man
Okay. I agree.

the will of man is above the will of satan. Satan tries to tempt man to align his "free will" with his own.
I don't understand this one. Do you actually mean that the will of man is above the will of satan or do you merely mean that satan has no power to make man act according to his evil plan?

In the garden of Eden mans will was aligned with the fathers. Since the fall man's will is never entirely free as he is either aligned to the fathers will or Satans.
Okay. So man's will is not free?

I look forward to debating this issue with you further.

with love and respect, andy153
Me too andy. Thanks for your input.

God bless

[Asaph]

If you are starving and there is placed before you a barrel full of apples that all have a certain amount rottenness to them and you pick through to find the best one to eat, have you chosen freely, or were all you choices bad?

Of course all your choices were bad, so you would chose the least rotten of the apples to eat. But the barrel that was set before you was not one of "good or bad" apples. They were all bad, therefore every "freewill" chosing of an apple was still chosing a bad apple.

Asaph

[Reformationist]

If you are starving and there is placed before you a barrel full of apples that all have a certain amount rottenness to them and you pick through to find the best one to eat, have you chosen freely, or were all you choices bad?

Of course all your choices were bad, so you would chose the least rotten of the apples to eat. But the barrel that was set before you was not one of "good or bad" apples. They were all bad, therefore every "freewill" chosing of an apple was still chosing a bad apple.

Asaph
This is true. Many people believe that because they make the choices that they make that they could have made any choice. The problem with natural man is that, while he freely chooses to make the choices he makes, his options are limited because his nature is a slave to sin.

The associate Pastor of my old church use to use this analogy to describe the choices man makes:

"When God created man He gave him a will. Let's represent man's will by a pond. In that pond were put red fish and blue fish. The red fish represent the evil choices he could make. The blue fish represent the obedient choices he could make. When man fell from grace his nature was corrupted and though he retained the pond (his will), he lost all desire to serve God so his choices became limited to the red fish (evil choices). Post-Fall man freely chooses the red fish but the red fish are all that he can choose because they are all his nature desires."

God bless

[Flynmonkie]

Do you believe that man, in his natural state apart from the grace of God, is able to choose to be obedient to God's Law?

Thanks,
God bless:wave: :)
What does the natural state of mans sinful nature have to do with accepting the gift of salvation? It does not change our natural state completely, it allows for the Holy Spririt to begin a santification process, a life long process -our will (natural state - Flesh) vs. Gods will. (Romans 7 gives a clear example of Flesh- sinful nature and the struggle.)

Only to reach completion - Glorification at the face of our Savior - Jesus. As you know I fit right in the middle of the Calvin Arm Camp, and still am there! ;)

So my answer to this is yes, man is capable of choosing to be obediant or not, by faith. We are allowed the chance to either Have it or not. As I have said before, Not only did God give us the gift of salvation, He gave us the choice.

Otherwise scripture such as this cannot be reconciled, Why would God have to tell us to turn from our evil ways if it was a forced concept?:
Ezekiel 33
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Man is not however capable of that relationship if they do not choose to turn from their evil ways. So the question seems circular.

[Reformationist]

:wave: :)
:wave: :)

What does the natural state of mans sinful nature have to do with accepting the gift of salvation?
Absolutely everything. If man is naturally inclined to disobey God then, apart from the grace of God, he will choose to only disobey God. If we do not recognize that we are naturally disinclined to obey God and, therefore, completely reliant upon His grace for all things, including obedience, then we will never credit God alone with our salvation.

Additionally, there is nothing in the Gospel that speaks of being saved because we accept a "gift of salvation." Salvation is something done to us, WITHOUT either our consent or cooperation. Now, lest you be confused into thinking that I am saying God saves us against our will, let me assure you that I am not. God does no violence to our nature by bringing us to saving faith. He changes our nature so as to make us willing to embrace Him as Lord.

It does not change our natural state completely, it allows for the Holy Spririt to begin a santification process, a life long process -our will (natural state - Flesh) vs. Gods will. (Romans 7 gives a clear example of Flesh- sinful nature and the struggle.)
Sanctification is something that only believers experience. It has no relevence to the question being asked.

So my answer to this is yes, man is capable of choosing to be obediant or not, by faith.
And is this capability something inherent to even man's fallen nature? Does man have this ability apart from the grace of God or is God's grace essential for man to be obedient?

We are allowed the chance to either Have it or not.
So salvation is by chance not grace? If salvation is the product of "chance," which is, in all reality, a completely non-existant entity, then is the fact that so many will not be saved a mistake on God's part?

By the way, what is "chance" in the realm of theology? By "chance" do you merely mean "opportunity?" If so, why is it that some avail themselves of the "opportunity" to be saved while others reject God?

As I have said before, Not only did God give us the gift of salvation, He gave us the choice.
The choice of what?

Otherwise scripture such as this cannot be reconciled, Why would God have to tell us to turn from our evil ways if it was a forced concept?:
Ezekiel 33
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
It's strange that you'd cite this passage as proof of your position. This book, The Bondage Of The Will, goes in to pretty good depth refuting Erasmus' unfortunate confusion of the imperative verses of Scripture, one of which you note here, and the indicative verses of Scripture.

Erasmus, in his pitiful attempt to proclaim the freedom of man's inherent will, something he ironically had not started out trying to prove, claimed that Scripturally based commands to repent and turn and obey and the like are in vain if man is not fully capable of doing such things. What Luther so aggressively pointed out to him was that one of the main purposes of the Law, despite the inept way that Erasmus was understanding Scripture, was to show man his inability to do as He commanded, not his freedom.

So, my question to you is, do you believe that when God commands us to do something that His command that we do it is proof that we have the natural ability to obey?

Man is not however capable of that relationship if they do not choose to turn from their evil ways. So the question seems circular.
So why do some choose to turn from their evil ways and others are happy to remain disobedient?

God bless

[andy153]

Dear Reformationist,

Free will means unconstrained choice or freedom to choose without outside influence having an affect on the outcome of our choices. This I believe is impossible pertaining to our mortality.

Man is bound to sin just by being born into a world of sin. The environment of this world has an effect on all who are born into it. Man is born not only with original sin but with original good as well, remember Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not evil only.

Man's will from birth is under the inflence of a fallen world which would suppress the good inherited from God. There is no escape from sin except through Jesus Christ. His will and his will alone was completely aligned to the fathers through obedience. Man's natural will is to please sin rather than God, not through inherited sin but because of the envirionment into which he is born. Jesus said "I have overcome the world" he never said he overcame sin.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.It is by Belief in the works of Jesus that we overcome the world.

1 John 5: 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?We are free to choose or reject the salvation of Christ.

Don't have time to write any more just now.

with love and respect, andy153

[mcvicarl]

guys, this thread is really interesting but can you please dumb it downa bit? if you make a parallel then explain it and if you use a blanket statement provide examples, i really want to listen in but a lot of this is going over my head!:sigh:

really sorry,

louise:sorry:

and god god bless guys you're all really thought provoking.

[Reformationist]

Free will means unconstrained choice or freedom to choose without outside influence having an affect on the outcome of our choices. This I believe is impossible pertaining to our mortality.
Did you mean "mortality" or "morality?" :scratch:

Man is bound to sin just by being born into a world of sin. The environment of this world has an effect on all who are born into it. Man is born not only with original sin but with original good as well, remember Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not evil only.
The inference you draw here requires that until Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he had no knowledge of good.

Man's will from birth is under the inflence of a fallen world which would suppress the good inherited from God. There is no escape from sin except through Jesus Christ. His will and his will alone was completely aligned to the fathers through obedience. Man's natural will is to please sin rather than God, not through inherited sin but because of the envirionment into which he is born.
This is unbiblical. We don't sin because we live in a world of sin. We sin because we are sinners, by nature. You acknowledge that man natural will is to please his flesh rather than God, which the Bible clearly states in Romans 8:7, but the mistake I think you make is that you attribute that desire to please his flesh to the fact that he lives in a fallen world. Not only does that void Jesus' representation on our behalf, it lessens man's culpability for his sin. Not to mention, Scripture specifically states that sin comes from the heart:

James 1:14,15
But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Your position blames the environment we live in and the temptation we are exposed to for our willful disregard for God's Law but Scripture is clear that sin comes from our own heart. This is the same tract that Adam and Eve took in the Garden when they tried to blame each other and the serpent for their disobedience. It didn't work with God and it should be something we use as an excuse. Man's will, from birth, is under the influence of his sinful nature. I agree that the world we live in offers manifold temptations. It isn't the environment that makes us incapable of obedience. Why was Jesus' obedience possible when ours, in our carnal state, is not? Is it because He walked among us in a parallel world that contained no temptation? Of course not. The difference was that He, unlike us, was not controlled by a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He was tempted in every way that we are but was without sin. It's not the temptation that makes us guilty of disobedience. It's our response to temptation. Without exception man fails to respond obediently.

Jesus said "I have overcome the world" he never said he overcame sin.
If what you contend here is true then we are all lost. It is our hope that through the atonement, resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the indwelling of the Spirit that we are more than conquerors through Christ. If overcoming sin, which leads to death, is not part of that hope then we will either never experience eternal life with our Father in Heaven or God, who is holy, will populate Heaven with those who continue to sin.

It is by Belief in the works of Jesus that we overcome the world.
What is the world if not that which is opposed to the rule of God? Does this not include sin?

We are free to choose or reject the salvation of Christ.
First you say that "Man's natural will is to please sin rather than God," though you attribute that to the environment rather than a inherently sinful nature and here you say that man is "free" to choose or reject the salvation of Christ. Tell me, andy, is God's grace necessary for fallen man to obey God or is natural man inherently capable of obedience?

God bless

[Reformationist]

guys, this thread is really interesting but can you please dumb it downa bit? if you make a parallel then explain it and if you use a blanket statement provide examples, i really want to listen in but a lot of this is going over my head!:sigh:

really sorry,

louise:sorry:

and god god bless guys you're all really thought provoking.
Not sure if you're talking to me but if so, I apologize. Is there anything in particular that you'd like elaboration on?

Thanks,
God bless

[andy153]

Dear Reformationist,

Did you mean "mortality" or "morality?" :scratch:

mortality ?

The inference you draw here requires that until Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he had no knowledge of good.

Adam was proclaimed very good after his creation. However, before Adam ate of the tree of good and evil he had no knowledge of either good or evil. Do you imply that Adam was evil before he had knowledge of evil ???.:scratch:

This is unbiblical. We don't sin because we live in a world of sin. We sin because we are sinners, by nature. You acknowledge that man natural will is to please his flesh rather than God, which the Bible clearly states in Romans 8:7, but the mistake I think you make is that you attribute that desire to please his flesh to the fact that he lives in a fallen world. Not only does that void Jesus' representation on our behalf, it lessens man's culpability for his sin. Not to mention, Scripture specifically states that sin comes from the heart:

Yes it is indeed biblical! when Adam was created he was placed into an environment without sin, Why ? so he could remain sinless. It was by deception of the serpent that Eve fell and then Adam chose to follow.

James 1:14,15
But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

This scripture proves my very point. It is the desire of the heart that gives birth to sin. If as you proclaim we are all sinners and sinners only by nature then Satan is redundant, there is no need for temptation. What does Satan use to tempt us ? the things of our environment, that which pertains to this fallen world. If we lived in a sinless world what could we be tempted with ??? This is why we will know no sin in heaven, because sin is absent.

Your position blames the environment we live in and the temptation we are exposed to for our willful disregard for God's Law but Scripture is clear that sin comes from our own heart. This is the same tract that Adam and Eve took in the Garden when they tried to blame each other and the serpent for their disobedience. It didn't work with God and it should be something we use as an excuse. Man's will, from birth, is under the influence of his sinful nature. I agree that the world we live in offers manifold temptations. It isn't the environment that makes us incapable of obedience. Why was Jesus' obedience possible when ours, in our carnal state, is not? Is it because He walked among us in a parallel world that contained no temptation? Of course not. The difference was that He, unlike us, was not controlled by a sin nature. The Bible is clear that He was tempted in every way that we are but was without sin. It's not the temptation that makes us guilty of disobedience. It's our response to temptation. Without exception man fails to respond obediently.

Yes indeed sin is a matter of the heart, but the heart is capable of good as well as evil. It is because of temptation that man is drawn away from good and into evil.

Satan tried to tempt Christ with the things of this world, Jesus refused them, man does not.

If what you contend here is true then we are all lost. It is our hope that through the atonement, resurrection and ascension of Jesus and the indwelling of the Spirit that we are more than conquerors through Christ. If overcoming sin, which leads to death, is not part of that hope then we will either never experience eternal life with our Father in Heaven or God, who is holy, will populate Heaven with those who continue to sin.

If sin is overcome then this world will not be destroyed at the great and last day. Jesus did not overcome sin, (he had no sin to overcome) as long as good exsists so to will evil. When all is resolved good will be in heaven and sin will be in hell, in seperate environments. Jesus paid the price for sin and for sinners, thereby providing the means of escape (deliverer) from this world into the next.

The work of the holy spirit is to draw men to Christ away from the temptations of the world and into the presence of God.

What is the world if not that which is opposed to the rule of God? Does this not include sin? (I am not sure what you mean here )???

First you say that "Man's natural will is to please sin rather than God,"
(correct, because his flesh is weak, and is easily tempted into sin). though you attribute that to the environment rather than a inherently sinful nature (correct again, but man is not only inherently sinful he also inherited good from Adam) and here you say that man is "free" to choose or reject the salvation of Christ. (correct again, man is free to chose because of the inhertited knowledge of good and evil )Tell me, andy, is God's grace necessary for fallen man to obey God (NO, grace is necessary for salvation not for obedience) or is natural man inherently capable of obedience? (Natural man can obey or disobey the choice is his.)

God blesswith love and respect, andy153

[Reformationist]

mortality ?

Sorry then. I don't know what you mean.

Adam was proclaimed very good after his creation. However, before Adam ate of the tree of good and evil he had no knowledge of either good or evil. Do you imply that Adam was evil before he had knowledge of evil ???.:scratch:

If Adam had no knowledge of good or evil before the Fall then Adam's choice to disobey God was not a moral choice and, therefore, could not have moral ramifications. The very idea that God would hold someone, anyone, much less everyone, morally accountable for a moral choice by a creation that had no morals is not only illogical, it makes God out to be unrighteous. No andy, the very fact that God held Adam and his progeny morally accountable for Adam's choice shows that choice to be a moral one. Adam was in full fellowship with God. God is a perfectly righteous Being. It is impossible to think that Adam's relationship with God could be considered full fellowship if there were no moral aspect to their relationship.

when Adam was created he was placed into an environment without sin, Why ? so he could remain sinless. It was by deception of the serpent that Eve fell and then Adam chose to follow.

Andy, with all due respect, this does violence to Scripture and God's righteous design in creation. You claim that when Adam was created he was placed in an environment without sin for the purpose of keeping him sinless. This idea would have merit had God not put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in their midst and then told them it was off limits. It would have merit if God forbade Adam and Eve to be in the presence of the deceiving serpent. Unfortunatly for your position, neither of those things are true. God did place the tree in their midsts. God did allow them to be tempted by satan. Additionally, believing that God's intent was that man should never Fall is to deny that the Fall, one of the most influentially pivitol events in the history of creation, was part of God's divine and immutable plan. And last, but certainly not least, you are still trying to blame man's fall on satan. I agree that satan deceived them and that his deception was influential in their Fall. HOWEVER, when the Lord questioned Adam as to whether he had disobeyed and ate from the tree his response was one of shifting the blame, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." So the Lord asked Eve, "What is this you have done?" Her response? Well, it's the same as yours, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." She tried to blame her disobedience upon the temptor. If, as you contend, the serpent was solely responsible for their Fall then God would have only punished the serpent. He did not. He punished all of the parties involved (Gen 3:14-24). Likewise, when you stand before the Lord on judgement day and must make account for your disobedience you won't be able to claim that you sinned because "the devil made you do it" or because God brought you forth "in a world of sin and temptation." You'll cower before the Lord's wrath because you'll know, as did Adam and Eve, that you sinned because you desired the darkness rather than the light. Is the darkness to blame for your response to it?

This scripture proves my very point. It is the desire of the heart that gives birth to sin.

If James 1:14,15 proves your point then you're contradicting yourself. You cannot say that we sin because the desires of our heart are sinful while claiming that Adam's sin is the product of the deceit of the serpent, despite the fact that he knew no sin, nor knew what was good or evil. Andy, nothing in Scripture even comes close to implying that Adam and Eve were without knowledge of what was expected of them. Adam and Eve were not simply obeying God until they disobeyed merely because nothing else had crossed their mind. They submitted to the Lordship of God because He was their Creator and they knew His demands to be righteous.

If as you proclaim we are all sinners and sinners only by nature then Satan is redundant, there is no need for temptation.

What?? You have some of the strangest logic I've ever read. Sin isn't acknowledging the presence of something. It's the peversion of that acknowledgement. For instance, money is not evil. The love of money is evil. The tree in the Garden wasn't evil. It was Adam and Eve's response to the tree that was evil. There is no object that we would ever consider sinful that is, in itself, evil. Not money, not sex, not nudity, not anything. It is greed, extramarital intercourse, and lust that perverts these things making us guilty of sin before God.

What does Satan use to tempt us ? the things of our environment, that which pertains to this fallen world.

What did he use to tempt Christ? Oh, that's right, the things of our environment. Could Christ have blamed the environment or satan or the temptation for sinning? Of course not. The very thing that you blame as the reason for our sin is the thing that showed Christ's submission to the Father. We know that in Christ we have a Savior to whom we can relate because He was tempted in every way that we are but was without sin. If your view held true then we must either conclude that Christ did sin, because satan did tempt Him, or that His response to that temptation is of no consequence and, therefore, of no benefit to us. You see, the contrast between the first Adam and the Last is the way they responded to temptation. Neither were created/born with a sinful nature.

If we lived in a sinless world what could we be tempted with ???

This is an irrelevent question and has no practical value to we who do live in a fallen world. As I said, if you think you can blame the world you live in then go for it. Just remember, we are clearly told that though we are in the world we are not of the world. What does that mean? Could it just possibly be referring to the way we respond to the things of the world? Could it just possibly deal with living as those set apart from the fallen ways of the world?

This is why we will know no sin in heaven, because sin is absent. You see, this type of theology is what those who attack my views should be arguing against. You argue against the idea that fallen man sins because he desires sin and, as a volitional creature, always seeks that which he most desires, destroying the idea of a will that is free, yet you have no problem claiming that the reason man doesn't sin in Heaven is because there is no outlet for his evil desires. Once again you are incorrect. You are right that there will be no sin in Heaven but that is NOT why glorified man won't sin. He won't sin because his only desire will be to obey God and glorify Him forever.

Yes indeed sin is a matter of the heart, but the heart is capable of good as well as evil.

Gen 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

This was the Lord's assessment of mankind after his Fall. You claim that man is capable of good as well as evil and Scripture flatly denies that fallen man ever has a righteous thought, much less a righteous action.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Paul clearly states that man's natural proclivity is so corrupted that his nature prevents him from submitting to God's Law, yet you contend that this same carnal mind is capable of good as well as evil.

Faith in God is required for us to be obedient. Faith is a gift of God's grace to whom He dispenses as it pleases Him. Whatsoever is not from faith is sin. All of this and the Bible is clear about man's response to God and His Law:

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I won't post it but if you really want to see man's natural disposition then just read Romans 3:10-18.

It is because of temptation that man is drawn away from good and into evil.

Patently untrue and unbiblical. There are many saints in the Gospel that were tempted and often responded obediently. Look at Joseph. Aside from Christ I cannot say that the Bible speaks of one who is more unfairly afflicted than Joseph. If you are right then the temptation that Joseph experiences drew him away from God yet not only are we told that in the midst of this temptation he cleaved even closer unto God, we are not told of one single instance of sinful thought or action on Joseph's part. Now, I don't mean to contend that Joseph was without sin. That would be untrue. However, his life is a clear cut example that temptation to sin, in itself, is not capable of making us sin. We sin, as the Bible says, when we are drawn away "by our own desires" (HELLO??!! This is clearly speaking of our RESPONSE to temptation).

Satan tried to tempt Christ with the things of this world, Jesus refused them, man does not.

And all this does is contradict everything you've said. You claim that Adam and Eve sinned because satan tempted them. Now you claim that though satan tempted Christ He didn't sin. Hmmm...where is the difference? Oh, that's right, IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE TEMPTATION. You see andy, as I said before, it is not the world's temptation that makes us guilty before God. It is our response to the world's temptation.

If sin is overcome then this world will not be destroyed at the great and last day.

Come on. Who said the world would be destroyed in the last day? I don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Jesus did not overcome sin, (he had no sin to overcome) as long as good exsists so to will evil.

This is very strange. The hope of Christians is that He WHO BECAME SIN for us has prevailed and by His stripes we are reconciled to God. You, on the other hand, divorce Christ's work from sin on the basis that He was not personally liable. I agree that Christ was free from guilt but if He did not die to atone for our sin and, therefore, remove its sting, what in the world is it that He did for us?

Also, you say that "as long as good exists so too will evil." Let's see, earlier you said, "This is why we will know no sin in heaven, because sin is absent." There are a number of theologically unsound principles expressed in your contradictory statements. Before creation, which includes satan and fallen man, God existed. God is clearly good. In fact, He is the standard of good by which all else is measured and found wanting. If you are right then before God created the angels, man and anything else, evil existed. This is nothing more than the unbiblical notion of dualism. Secondly, not only will evil exist when we are basking in the glory of God in Heaven, you contend that, by virtue of the presence of good, it must exist. Don't have a clue where you ever got that idea. God's existence, and therefore, the existence of good Itself is neither derived nor dependent upon the existence of evil.

When all is resolved good will be in heaven and sin will be in hell, in seperate environments. Jesus paid the price for sin and for sinners, thereby providing the means of escape (deliverer) from this world into the next.


So God's design was flawed? Things happen contrary to the will of an omnipoent, omniscient, immutable Creator?
The work of the holy spirit is to draw men to Christ away from the temptations of the world and into the presence of God.

And? I don't see your point.

(I am not sure what you mean here )???

You said that Christ overcame the world, not sin. You also said that it is by belief in the works of Jesus that we overcome this world. I'm merely asking you how you can deny that "overcoming" this world includes overcoming sin.

[Reformationist]

(NO, grace is necessary for salvation not for obedience)



John 8:34-36
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

If we are naturally free to obey God then why must we be made free from being slaves of sin?

Ephesians 2:1-3
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

What does "dead in trespasses and sins" mean to you? Why is Paul making a clear cut distinction between those who continue to walk in sin, being willing slaves of satan, and those whom God has made alive? If your contention is true then Paul is a liar and we are fully capable, apart from the grace of God, to obey the Law.

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Despite your view, the Bible clearly states that man is naturally incapable of submitting to the Law of God because he sees that Law as not only the Law of his Enemy but as foolishness.

Ezekiel 11:19,20
Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

Please andy, explain to me why man must have his heart changed by God so that he can keep God's Law and walk in His statutes if he is capable of doing so without God's grace?

(Natural man can obey or disobey the choice is his.)

I agree that man makes a choice to obey or disobey but you take it waaaay too far. You divorce man's ability to keep the Law from God's grace and make man's fallen will, which is by nature at enmity against God, able to keep God's Law.

I have to tell you andy, intelligent as you may be, I've never heard a Christian claim that man is naturally able to keep the Law of God apart from God's grace.

I have a question for you. If fallen man naturally can obey God's law, why does He need to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Why did Christ have to die for his sins? Why doesn't man, any person ever, aside from Christ, choose to obey? Do you think it merely coincidence that despite the fact that man can obey God's Law without need of His grace that no one, aside from Christ, ever has?

God bless

[andy153]

Dear Reformationist,

Thank you for considerd response.



If Adam had no knowledge of good or evil before the Fall then Adam's choice to disobey God was not a moral choice and, therefore, could not have moral ramifications. The very idea that God would hold someone, anyone, much less everyone, morally accountable for a moral choice by a creation that had no morals is not only illogical, it makes God out to be unrighteous. No andy, the very fact that God held Adam and his progeny morally accountable for Adam's choice shows that choice to be a moral one. Adam was in full fellowship with God. God is a perfectly righteous Being. It is impossible to think that Adam's relationship with God could be considered full fellowship if there were no moral aspect to their relationship.

I disagree completely, the knowledge of good and evil was contained in the fruit of the tree not in Adam, it is therfore impossible for Adam to have knowlegde of good and evil before taking the fruit. God clearly states in Genesis that it was after he ate that he became aware of good and evil not before.

[QUOTE]Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

We have had a conversation before about the motives of Adam and Eve so I wont dig over old ground.

Andy, with all due respect, this does violence to Scripture and God's righteous design in creation.I see no need for this kind of rhetoric in your reply. Please do not accuse me of violating scripture. I will not respond to that type of bait or indeed to that type of abuse. You may think that I violate scripture, maybe I think you do. What you say implies an intentional motive for me to mislead you or others. Let us keep the faith together even when we disagree.

You claim that when Adam was created he was placed in an environment without sin for the purpose of keeping him sinless. I don't claim it the bible does. Everything was proclaimed good and Adam was placed into the garden where he could be sinless with his creator in his environment as long as he chose to be so.

This idea would have merit had God not put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in their midst and then told them it was off limits. It would have merit if God forbade Adam and Eve to be in the presence of the deceiving serpent. Unfortunatly for your position, neither of those things are true. God did place the tree in their midsts. God did allow them to be tempted by satan.
Additionally, believing that God's intent was that man should never Fall is to deny that the Fall, one of the most influentially pivitol events in the history of creation, was part of God's divine and immutable plan. And last, but certainly not least, you are still trying to blame man's fall on satan. I agree that satan deceived them and that his deception was influential in their Fall. HOWEVER, when the Lord questioned Adam as to whether he had disobeyed and ate from the tree his response was one of shifting the blame, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." So the Lord asked Eve, "What is this you have done?" Her response? Well, it's the same as yours, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." She tried to blame her disobedience upon the temptor. If, as you contend, the serpent was solely responsible for their Fall then God would have only punished the serpent. He did not. He punished all of the parties involved (Gen 3:14-24). Likewise, when you stand before the Lord on judgement day and must make account for your disobedience you won't be able to claim that you sinned because "the devil made you do it" or because God brought you forth "in a world of sin and temptation." You'll cower before the Lord's wrath because you'll know, as did Adam and Eve, that you sinned because you desired the darkness rather than the light. Is the darkness to blame for your response to it?

I believe that the fall was part of God's plan, this is clear from the fact that the tree is in the garden. The tree was not however placed in the garden of Eden as a deliberate temptation for Adam or Eve. It was there because it had to be there. To understand this fully you must appreciate the manner in which each of the main characters in the garden were created.

Adam was created outside the garden and brought in. Eve was created in the garden and had no knowledge of exsistence outside the garden, Adam did. The serpent, now where did he come from ???

If James 1:14,15 proves your point then you're contradicting yourself. You cannot say that we sin because the desires of our heart are sinful while claiming that Adam's sin is the product of the deceit of the serpent, despite the fact that he knew no sin, nor knew what was good or evil.

Why can't I say this ? I see no contradiction. It all comes down to why you Believe Adam ate and why we sin. The two are not the same. I have never said at any time that Adam was deceived by the serpent, he wasn't Eve was.

Andy, nothing in Scripture even comes close to implying that Adam and Eve were without knowledge of what was expected of them. I agree 100%


Adam and Eve were not simply obeying God until they disobeyed merely because nothing else had crossed their mind. They submitted to the Lordship of God because He was their Creator and they knew His demands to be righteous.

Not sure what you mean here ??? sorry

What?? You have some of the strangest logic I've ever read. Sin isn't acknowledging the presence of something. It's the peversion of that acknowledgement. For instance, money is not evil. The love of money is evil.

I agree

The tree in the Garden wasn't evil. It was Adam and Eve's response to the tree that was evil. I disagree, it was their response to the serpent, not the tree.

There is no object that we would ever consider sinful that is, in itself, evil. Not money, not sex, not nudity, not anything. It is greed, extramarital intercourse, and lust that perverts these things making us guilty of sin before God.

I don't think I have said that. If I have given that impression it is not what I wished to say. I thought I said it was the things of the world that are used to tempt man not that they themselves were evil.

What did he use to tempt Christ? Oh, that's right, the things of our environment. Please do not be flippent with the Lord and his sufferings.

Could Christ have blamed the environment or satan or the temptation for sinning? Of course not. The very thing that you blame as the reason for our sin is the thing that showed Christ's submission to the Father. We know that in Christ we have a Savior to whom we can relate because He was tempted in every way that we are but was without sin. If your view held true then we must either conclude that Christ did sin, because satan did tempt Him, or that His response to that temptation is of no consequence and, therefore, of no benefit to us. You see, the contrast between the first Adam and the Last is the way they responded to temptation. Neither were created/born with a sinful nature.I have to confess I have no idea what you are saying here ???

The point I was trying to make was that with the absence of temptation there is nothing to be tempted with. Satan tried to tempt Christ with the things of the world. Please do not imply that I said the Lord sinned or that my view is such. I disassociate myself from these remarks.

This is an irrelevent question and has no practical value to we who do live in a fallen world. As I said, if you think you can blame the world you live in then go for it. No, I said it is because we are here in a fallen world that we can sin, it is man that is to blame for his own sin.


You see, this type of theology is what those who attack my views should be arguing against. You argue against the idea that fallen man sins because he desires sin and, as a volitional creature, always seeks that which he most desires, destroying the idea of a will that is free, (No I do Not) yet you have no problem claiming that the reason man doesn't sin in Heaven is because there is no outlet for his evil desires. Not what I am saying at all, before man can enter into heaven he must be cleansed of all sin, I said that there would be no sin in heaven

Once again you are incorrect. You are right that there will be no sin in Heaven but that is NOT why glorified man won't sin. I never said this is why man won't sin in heaven, I merely state the obvious that with the absence of temptation to draw him away man cannot sin. If the tree had not been in the garden then Adam would still be there. He won't sin because his only desire will be to obey God and glorify Him forever.

I will respond to the rest of your posts later.


with love and respect, andy153

[andy153]

Dear Reformationist,

I am unaware of Jesus having claimed to overcome sin, I need to be educated here. Please show me where it says this in scripture. You see my problem is I still see sin in the world. I myself am still a sinner, you obviously are not.

Is Gods grace necessary to be obedient. No definently not !

The pharisees were clearly obedient in certain aspects of the law, where they under divine grace ???

Come on. Who said the world would be destroyed in the last day? I don't even have a clue what you're talking about.

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
If the world is to end it must have a last day.

with love and respect, andy153

[Reformationist]

I disagree completely, the knowledge of good and evil was contained in the fruit of the tree not in Adam, it is therfore impossible for Adam to have knowlegde of good and evil before taking the fruit. God clearly states in Genesis that it was after he ate that he became aware of good and evil not before.
Let me ask you something. Do you think that Adam's disobedience had moral ramifications?

I see no need for this kind of retoric in your reply. Please do not accuse me of violating scripture. I will not respond to that type of bait or indeed to that type of abuse. You may think that I violate scripture, maybe I think you do. What you say implies an intentional motive for me to mislead you or others. Let us keep the faith together even when we disagree.

andy, I am neither accusing you of an ungodly motive nor am I being abusive. I think you're being way too touchy. Need I preface my comments with, "in my opinion?" Would that make it easier for you? I don't claim to be infallible. I believe my view is biblically accurate but my goal with you thus far is to discern whether your views have merit. With regard to the way you have tried to shift the blame of Adam's disobedience to the devil and denied that Adam knew his actions were morally wrong, I fail to see how God could hold Adam and the rest of us eternally accountable for an act of disobedience when the one who committed the violation didn't know it was wrong to do so. That would be akin to punishing a child that is not yet potty trained for pooping in their diaper.

I don't claim it the bible does. Everything was proclaimed good and Adam was placed into the garden where he could be sinless with his creator in his environment as long as he chose to be so.

Okay. Let's, for the moment, consider the facts rather than how we each interpret Scripture. Fact #1 - God created Adam and, from him, Eve. Fact #2 - God placed in their midst the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Fact #3 - God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit. Fact #4 - God told them that if they disobeyed Him and ate of the tree then they would surely die because eating of the tree was against His Law and, as such, sinful and the wages of sin is death. Are we good up to this point?

Now, you contend that Adam was placed in "an environment that was "without sin for the purpose of keeping him sinless."

The first issue at hand is that this is clearly untrue. They were clearly told that eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was sinful and that they would incur the wrath of God unto death if they chose to disobey. If you take issue with me saying that your claim that Adam was put in an environment without sin then show me how God's sovereign placement of them in the proximity of something He had declared off limits, thereby making possible their transgression, is in line with the idea that they are in an environment without sin. Right in their midst was something that was unlawful. Before I continue let me clarify that it was not sinful for God to do this, nor is God liable for their response to that which He had deemed off limits. Additionally, I agree that they were not sinful by nature. However, to say that they had no knowledge of sin is only true insofar as acknowledging that sin was not part of their nature. They knew full well that they were not to disobey God. They, being in such intimate fellowship with the Lord, also knew that obeying Him was good. To deny this, as I said before, makes God's punishment of them, for their disobedience to His clearly stated mandate, an unrighteous ruling.

Additionally, one of the most important aspects of your position is that they disobeyed because of the deception of the serpent. Now, if you feel that it makes any sense to claim that Adam was placed in an environment that was without sin while also acknowledging that in that environment that was without sin they were deceived by the sinful machinations of the devil I'd love to hear how you reconcile those clearly opposing viewpoints.

And lastly, your statement that God placing Adam in the Garden, where there was no sin, is purposed to enable Adam to keep from sinning does two very discouraging things. First, it makes a mockery of God's ability to achieve His own purpose, which is flatly denied by Scripture (Job 42:2). According to you He created Adam and placed him in a sin-free environment for the purpose of keeping him sinless yet, despite the intentions of the Creator of all things created, the omnipotent and immutable God of all, man still sinned. Secondly, you qualify that statement by adding, "as long as he chose to be so." Please explain how a creation that knows neither good nor evil can make a moral decision about anything. If you are correct than it is completely logical to assume Adam would have been just as satisfied in disobeying as in obeying. In fact, if your position is true, then Adam would never have made a decision one way or the other because he had no inclinations to either obey or disobey until the all powerful serpent came along. How could he? He didn't know right from wrong. In his amoral mind evil was just as attractive as good being that he had knowledge of what either was.



I believe that the fall was part of God's plan, this is clear from the fact that the tree is in the garden.

Okay. I agree.

The tree was not however placed in the garden of Eden as a deliberate temptation for Adam or Eve.

Again, I agree. And, I've never stated that God was trying to tempt Adam and Eve to rebel. God tempts no one to sin. We are tempted when we desire that which God has made off limits and we nourish that unlawful desire in our heart.

It was there because it had to be there.

Okay. I agree.

To understand this fully you must appreciate the manner in which each of the main characters in the garden were created.

I'm not sure what bearing that has on the discussion but I'll consider what you say here.

Adam was created outside the garden and brought in.

Okay.

Eve was created in the garden and had no knowledge of exsistence outside the garden, Adam did.

Okay.

The serpent, now where did he come from ???

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Anyway, you didn't show how "the manner in which each of the main characters in the Garden were created" has any bearing on this issue nor how appreciating this knowledge should help me fully understand this. Can you elaborate?

Why can't I say this ? I see no contradiction.

It's a contradiction because you claim that it is the desire of the heart that gives birth to sin yet you acknowledge that Adam sinned yet knew neither good nor evil. The point is, Adam is either culpable because the desires of his heart were sinful or God held him eternally morally accountable for being tricked even though it was by God's creative power that Adam was created in such a state of naivety as to be so easily manipulated. What you seem to be doing is making a distinction between pre- and post-Fall man when you submit that sin is from the heart, yet you disregard that distinction when it contradicts your view as to where sin comes from in the case of pre-Fall man. If you purport that sin is the product of the desires of the heart then the heart must unilaterally be the source of sin. You cannot say that sin is the product of the desires of the heart but reject that as the reason that Adam sinned.

It all comes down to why you Believe Adam ate and why we sin.

Are you referring to the reason that Adam ate and we sin? The reason is the same, i.e., Adam/post-Fall man desires to put his own desires above that of God's divine rule. Granted, there is a difference with regard to the influence of sin upon Adam versus upon post-Fall man. However, to divorce our behavior from our desires is to actually imply that God forces man to sin.

I have never said at any time that Adam was deceived by the serpent, he wasn't Eve was.

Wait a minute. Now your making needless distinctions. If I tell you a lie and you relay that lie to another without malicious intent or knowledge of its untruth then who was that person truly deceived by, me or you? This is the case with Adam and Eve, unless, of course, you're contending that though Adam didn't know right from wrong but Eve did and her motive in persuading Adam to eat of the fruit was malicious. Ultimately it was the serpent that deceived Adam.

Not sure what you mean here ??? sorry

You said that Adam had no knowledge of good or evil prior to his eating of the fruit. My point was that Adam's obedience and submission to the Lord had to include the fact that he knew God was good. If you claim that Adam had no knowledge of the goodness of the Lord then you make his submission of no value and contend that Adam was merely obeying God until he ate of the fruit simply because no other option had presented itself. There is no biblical basis for this.

I disagree, it was their response to the serpent, not the tree.

God did not tell them they could not talk to the serpent so their response to it isn't the issue. Additionally, man did not fall from grace because of their response to the serpent. He fell from grace because he violated the law of God regarding the TREE. Also, how can Adam have an evil response to the serpent prior to his knowledge of good and evil? You're applying morality to a creature that, at that point, was amoral, according to you.

I don't think I have said that. If I have given that impression it is not what I wished to say. I thought I said it was the things of the world that are used to tempt man not that they themselves were evil.

You didn't say that they were, themselves, evil but that is the clear inference. You attribute man's continued sinfulness to the sinful environment that he lives in. You claim that man would not sin if he lived in a world with no sin. Unless you are speaking of a scenario that includes man WITHOUT HIS SINFUL NATURE being put in an environment that includes no sin I would have to disagree and reiterate that it is NOT the environment that causes man to sin, it is, as you previously acknowledged, the desires of his fallen heart. One very clear example of this is monastic endeavors. One of the reasons monks would separate themselves from the populace was to remove themselves from the presence of sin. They lived a secluded life of poverty, peity, and prayer. Did they sin? Of course. Homosexuality was rampant, as were many other types of sin. The monks couldn't escape sin because sin was in their heart. So, they, and you, could not claim that people sin because of the temptations of the environment. The truth of the fallen heart is that it is desparate to find objects which it can pervert. The heart is an idol factory.

Please do not be flippent with the Lord and his sufferings.

andy, I'm not being flippant. I'm trying to show you the inconsistancy in what you're purporting. You claim that the reason we sin is because satan uses the things of our environment to tempt us. I said that he tried the same tactic with the Lord. The difference? We sin, He did not. The bottom line is that if the same influences are applied to two different objects and there are two different results then the pivitol part of the equation cannot be the influence. It has to be with the objects.

I have to confess I have no idea what you are saying here ???

The point I was trying to make was that with the absence of temptation there is nothing to be tempted with.

This is a non-issue in our discussion. In our unglorified state there is no such thing as an "absence of temptation." No matter what environment we live in in our unglorified state we will sin because our heart will create its own idols because we have a sinful nature.

Satan tried to tempt Christ with the things of the world.

No. Satan did tempt Christ with the things of the world. This "temptation" is an external temptation. The difference is that Christ was not internally tempted, unlike us, who are regularly internally tempted by the temptations of satan and this fallen world.

Please do not imply that I said the Lord sinned or that my view is such. I disassociate myself from these remarks.

andy, if you're going continue to misread my posts and get offended by your misunderstandings then this conversation will go quickly downhill. I never said you claimed that the Lord sinned. I said that if your position is correct then we must conclude that either the Lord did sin when tempted or that His obedience is of no value to us.

No, I said it is because we are here in a fallen world that we can sin, it is man that is to blame for his own sin.

Uh...no you didn't. You said, "Man's will from birth is under the inflence of a fallen world which would suppress the good inherited from God. Man's natural will is to please sin rather than God, not through inherited sin but because of the envirionment into which he is born." You are clearly not relaying that man can sin but that man does sin because of the influence of the fallen world into which he is born.

[Reformationist]

I am unaware of Jesus having claimed to overcome sin, I need to be educated here. Please show me where it says this in scripture. You see my problem is I still see sin in the world.
The fact that the Lord's plan has not yet fully manifested doesn't mean that Christ is not currently seated at the right hand of the Father, reigning as King of kings. Just because you still see sin in this world doesn't mean that Jesus hasn't overcome it. At some point, according to whensoever the Lord has decreed, this world will be free of sin. That time has not yet come but Christ's sacrifice was eternally efficient and sin and death have been defeated by His atonement.

I myself am still a sinner, you obviously are not.
Give me a break. This is completely unnecessary. In your previous post you got all offended because I claimed that your understanding violates Scripture. Here you think being facetious is necessary. Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Is Gods grace necessary to be obedient. No definently not !

The pharisees were clearly obedient in certain aspects of the law, where they under divine grace ???
Outward obedience is of no eternal value and, in actuality, is not truly obedience.

If the world is to end it must have a last day.
Geesh. "Heos sunteleia aion [even unto the end of the world]" isn't speaking of the end of this world. It's meant to signify God's everlasting companionship. It merely means that God has made us His and will be our Father forever and ever, without end.

God bless

[andy153]

Dear Reformationist,

Yes I believe this conversation is going downhill and nowhere fast. I am happy to debate with you and I am happy for you to disagree with me. However, I will not become embrioled in a name calling session.

The reason I said "you obviously are not" a sinner was refering to your belief that sin had been overcome therfore it cold not be in your life ??? It was not meant to be facetious at all. I am sorry if that is how it came across.

I do not violate scripture, if that is your opinion I would ask you to keep it to yourself. To violate means to rape and I do not wish to be falsely accused of such behaviour. Not only for my sake but for yours as well. Please feel free to stop communicating with me at any time if you believe this. Indeed you must.

I will not retaliate with like for like, neither do I asume the higher moral ground over you. I can assure you that I have no desire to convince or convert anyone to my beliefs, nor indeed to even bring any into agreement with me. I am not on a mission in this forum.

You use words like "Geesh", and "give me a break" as to imply that what I believe is beneath your contempt. No, I do not wish for you to start your your replies with "in my opinion" I enjoy debating with you because you have strong beliefs and a firm faith in the Lord.

I respect you as I love and respect all men. The fact that I think you are wrong in most areas of your belief is of no consequence. I acknowledge the goodness of your heart and accept you as a brother in Christ.

I am happy and willing to continue our debate on an open or closed forum.

However, I feel it is unwise to continue when you continue to say I rape scripture. I stand by what I have said in my previous posts, although not with your interpretation of them.

with love and respect, andy153

[Reformationist]

Yes I believe this conversation is going downhill and nowhere fast. I am happy to debate with you and I am happy for you to disagree with me. However, I will not become embrioled in a name calling session.
Name calling session? :scratch:

The reason I said "you obviously are not" a sinner was refering to your belief that sin had been overcome therfore it cold not be in your life ??? It was not meant to be facetious at all. I am sorry if that is how it came across.
I never said that sin was eradicated. I said it was overcome. There is a difference.

I do not violate scripture, if that is your opinion I would ask you to keep it to yourself. To violate means to rape and I do not wish to be falsely accused of such behaviour.
violate:
1 : BREAK (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=break), DISREGARD (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disregard) <violate the law>
2 : to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : RAPE (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rape)
3 : to fail to show proper respect for : PROFANE (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=profane) <violate a shrine>
4 : INTERRUPT (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=interrupt), DISTURB (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=disturb) <violate the peace of a spring evening

These are the definitions of violate and of those you feel that the one I was using was "rape?" It seems that you are seeing what you want to see. Don't you think that it's possible that I meant "violate" in a different way?

However, I feel it is unwise to continue when you continue to say I rape scripture. I stand by what I have said in my previous posts, although not with your interpretation of them.

with love and respect, andy153
Andy, if you are going to take the most offensive meaning of a word that there is and ASSUME that that is what I meant then it is better if you and I forego continuing. I may, at some point, use a word that has multiple meanings and though a particular definition may not suit the context you may take it that way and become even more offended. I have no desire for that to happen.

I pray that the Lord's blessings be upon you and those you love for all times,

God bless

[Telrunya]

Just so I'm clear, are you contending that man's will is inherently free and has no need of divine grace to incline itself towards things pertaining to eternal life?

Also, just for your future reference, the scripting for this MB's format encloses tags in brackets, i.e., [ and ], rather than the usual < and >.:)

God bless
Sorry it took me so long to get back here. I've been a busy busy boy. BTW Thanks for the tip. ;)

Not to answer your question. Yes I believe God created us with a will that is inherently free. I'm not sure that I can go along with the rest of it though. We are under a curse from God. This is a fallen world and EVERY man woman and child are sinners and thus cannot attain eternal life on our own. I do believe that our free will enables us to accept the devine grace given us. Our free will enables us to choose to follow Christ. Are you asking if any can do this without being convicted by the Holy Spirit to come to God and that we need forgiveness?